Possible New Types of Radiation or Physical Fields?

[SAZAR]

We know there are (those mostly observable) fields like: gravity, forces between molecules, magnetic fields, electric fields, and infinite frequencies of electromagnetic fields, but:

What totally separate (special in a way), different by nature, totally new sorts of radiation or physical fields have been discovered thus now, and - if none - is it possible that there could be some new (new for us that is, to our knowledge new) sorts of radiation or fields?


(I mean, for example: in medieval ages people didn't know about radio waves and didn't have the technology to pick-up radio transmissions -- they couldn't even dream of something that "impossible" - something invisible which travels around like light and can be used to carry voice and even coded to transmit pictures and information (text or computer data). I didn't have any uses in mind when I asked the question, I'm simply amused by the thought -- entertained by the comparison between us (modern age people) who do not have knowledge of that sort of field/radiation (haven't really figured out the way to pick-up, to register the presence of that radiation/field) and medieval people who didn't have a clue about radio waves (which were all around them - at least as background noise that is :D ).)

 

[mathman]

I don't know of any undiscovered fields, but that is what undiscovered fields are - undiscovered!

 

[Delta2]

I don't know of any undiscovered fields, but that is what undiscovered fields are - undiscovered!

LOL!. Nice answer )

Well the so called dark energy could be the new field outhere though nobody really knows.

 

[JDługosz]

If there were any such that had any effect on matter at normal energy, or even at the energy of fusion within stars, we would have noticed already.

There may be extra bosons associated with various Unification ideas, but they would be very massive and have extremely limited range. For example, proton decay has never been detected at all!

 

[Mr Vibrating]

The closest thing to a 'new' field in modern physics is the vacuum energy of QED - the intrinsic energy of spacetime itself, and the bedrock of everything else.

All interactions between all other forces and fields are exchanges of virtual particles rendered from this field.

Nobody knows what it is, yet. Its existence is directly implied by and a prerequisite for everything else, and we can even test it in the lab (ie. the twin plate Casimir effect). Like d^2 above alludes, some suggest it's the root of dark energy, accounting for the accelerating expansion of the cosmos. But nobody can tell you what a virtual particle actually is - it's intrisically unenvisionable, a mathematical abstraction, powered by energy from time (past or future depending on who you ask), and somewhat aloof from the 'thermodynamic' energy of the familiar electromagnetic, mechanical and nuclear domains. However all boson exchanges - all energy exchanges in all forces and fields - depend on them. What process powers this 'quantum foam' of virtual particle pairs - spontaneously manifesting from nowhere before instantaneously mutually anhiliating to repay their borrowed energy? We don't know..

But it's there. It's probably the solution to Farady's paradox (the reason magnetic fields don't rotate with their sources) and in all likelyhood the lumineferous aether of lore.. and we don't know what it is. Feynman himself didn't have a clue, his attitude was basically 'best not think about it' and for the most part that's pretty much still the status quo.

If there's one major field left that's still lying fallow, it's this 'un.

 

[russ_watters]

(I mean, for example: in medieval ages people didn't know about radio waves and didn't have the technology to pick-up radio transmissions -- they couldn't even dream of something that "impossible" - something invisible which travels around like light and can be used to carry voice and even coded to transmit pictures and information (text or computer data). I didn't have any uses in mind when I asked the question, I'm simply amused by the thought -- entertained by the comparison between us (modern age people) who do not have knowledge of that sort of field/radiation (haven't really figured out the way to pick-up, to register the presence of that radiation/field) and medieval people who didn't have a clue about radio waves (which were all around them - at least as background noise that is :D ).)

That isn't really a very good analogy. Medieval people didn't have science: they didn't have a method for successfully analyzing the natural world, much less theorizing beyond what they had observed. We have both, so there is significantly less likelihood that we're missing something so fundamental than that they were.

 

[IsometricPion]

What totally separate (special in a way), different by nature, totally new sorts of radiation or physical fields have been discovered thus now

The strong and weak nuclear forces. These are very short range forces (they only have significant effects over the atomic scale or smaller). I am not aware of any way that either of these forces could radiate over large distances (though, they can indirectly cause electromagnetic radiation to be produced). (Note: intermolecular forces, electric fields, magnetic field, and light are all thought to arise from the electromagnetic force/field)

 

[SAZAR]

That isn't really a very good analogy. Medieval people didn't have science: they didn't have a method for successfully analyzing the natural world, much less theorizing beyond what they had observed. We have both, so there is significantly less likelihood that we're missing something so fundamental than that they were.

Maybe we didn't look at the right place, maybe it is minuscule in nature (but could be artificially produced in massive quantities) maybe it doesn't occur naturally at all, maybe its effects are in action exclusively in combination of two (or more) materials, maybe it occurs in some combination and/or arrangement of known fields or radiations -- I mean, generally, that could be something we can't simply just notice, but actually GUESS (from infinite possibilities) how it might be produced or where it might be found if it naturally occurs...

 

[Nabeshin]

Maybe we didn't look at the right place, maybe it is minuscule in nature (but could be artificially produced in massive quantities) maybe it doesn't occur naturally at all, maybe its effects are in action exclusively in combination of two (or more) materials, maybe it occurs in some combination and/or arrangement of known fields or radiations -- I mean, generally, that could be something we can't simply just notice, but actually GUESS (from infinite possibilities) how it might be produced or where it might be found if it naturally occurs...

Eh. You realize that the same argument can be applied to any discovery science has made. You can always be skeptical. On the one hand, that's one of the great boons of science is that it can never really prove anything. On the other hand, when misunderstood, it allows anyone to purport anything and merely chalk up the disagreement with modern science to our ignorance.

Suffice it to say that if there exist new fields, they would completely destroy the standard model of particle physics. Therefore, we can put constraints upon what this field is, how it acts, over what distance and energy scales, etc. But you can always say your new field is attainable at just slightly higher energies or slightly shorter distance scales.

At some point, it might be wise to simply extrapolate the theory out to infinity and concentrate your efforts elsewhere rather than constantly ask the question of what's over the next energy barrier's horizon.

 

[SAZAR]

Yea', I forgot: Entanglement - there simply must be something in between the particles. What is it?

 

[SAZAR]

...What? ... Don't tell me that is still unknown...

 

[IsometricPion]

Entanglement - there simply must be something in between the particles. What is it?

The wavefunction of the particles connects them in a sense (they are "connected" via a global conservation law e.g., angular momentum in the case of spin). The wikipedia article on Bell's Theorem tells how it has been determined experimentally that there are no (reasonable) theories that can explain the results of entanglement experiments with heretofore unknown variables (that are local, i.e. that act over distances no larger than that allowed by the speed of light).

 

[ZapperZ]

Maybe we didn't look at the right place, maybe it is minuscule in nature (but could be artificially produced in massive quantities) maybe it doesn't occur naturally at all, maybe its effects are in action exclusively in combination of two (or more) materials, maybe it occurs in some combination and/or arrangement of known fields or radiations -- I mean, generally, that could be something we can't simply just notice, but actually GUESS (from infinite possibilities) how it might be produced or where it might be found if it naturally occurs...

This whole thread is verging on rather speculative guesswork, which is a double-whammy violation of our PF Rules. You really are shooting in the dark and hoping that something actually makes sense. I'm not even sure what "problem" it is that you are addressing and that you're hoping to solve with this "new type of field/radiation".

So far, the impetus for such new idea is just isn't there. Your example of quantum entanglement is horribly weak in light of (i) quantum mechanics and (ii) all the Bell-type experiments. In other words, there are no mechanism of signal transfer between all of the entangled particles. So to propose something is pure unverified speculation and cannot be done here.

If you feel that you have something substantial to propose, then please submit it to the IR forum, per our Rules. If you simply wish to shoot the breeze and hope that your random thoughts might mean something, then this is the wrong place to do it.

Zz.